FIREFLY NECROPSY (#4 of 4) - WHAT WENT WRONG?
POSTED BY: xed
UPDATED: Monday, December 23, 2002 13:00
VIEWED: 4787
PAGE 1 of 1
FIREFLY NECROPSY (PART #4) - WHAT WENT WRONG?
Reason #4 -- Funny-hat characters.
Damon Knight long ago (in a galaxy far away) defined funny-hat characters as cardboard cutouts whom the writer tries to trick us into mistaking for human beings by substituting a distinctive trait for genuine characterization.
In Firefly, without the 2-hour pilot, we had a show crippled by only 4 truly human characters out of a total of 7.
To check 'n see if a character's fully developed, ask: What is this character's inner conflict?
If you can answer, the character is a human being. If not, the character's a funny hat.
Kaylee becomes a fully-developed character the instant we see her humping the mechanic in the flashback in "Out Of Gas." NOW we get Kaylee. A wide-eyed innocent, stuck on a backwater planet, eager to experience the universe. Her conflict? Between her innate belief in people's goodness (because of the backwoods surroundings she grew up in) and her brutal education in the ways of the world as she crews Serenity and helps "do crime."
Jayne snaps instantly into focus in the hilariously classic scene in "Out Of Gas" ewhere he casually wounds his partners in crime after Mal mentions he'll give Jayne a room of his own on board Serenity. NOW we get Jayne -- "A man is only as good as his times, rmearked the Greek poet Simonides ca. 430 B.C., and that's Jayne's story. An essentially decent guy who's fallen in with the wrong people all his life, Jayne's conflict is between the brutal harshness of his upbringing ("The money was too good - it made me stupid"), and his desire to do right by the first decent people he's met in his life -- the crew of Serenity. ("Don't tell them I was the one who betrayed them," he says in "Ariel," proving Jayne has a spark of decency.)
Simon Tam gets well characterized as the nerd with guts and brains -- sort of the Xander of Serenity (to use a Buffy analogy) right at the git-go when he dopes Jayne up in "The Train Job," and Simon gets further depth as the series goes on. His conflict? Between his desire to fit into high class society and his need to do the right thing in savage circumstances.
Then we have Mal, an idealist mebittered by seeing everything he believes in go down in flames. Mal's conflict? Between his instinctive belief in a just universe and his need to make his way in an unspeakably harsh era that has dealt him all manner of unseemliness.
The remaining 3 characters, alas, are still funny hat characters. Cartoon cutouts with no personalities. Book? A preacher. That's his funny hat. No character deelopment in 10 episodes. A pretty poor showing. We get a tiny hint, but only a hitn of a conflict int he 2-hour pilot -- alas, since Fox NEVER AIRED THE GORRAM PILOT UNTIL THEY KILLED THE SERIES, what good does that do us?
Zoe? A complete cipher. She's Wash's husband and Mal's first officer -- that's her funny hat. We know zero about her, and learn nothing in 10 episodes. The writing staff just fell down on the job.
Wash? He's Mr. Sulu -- the bus driver. A completel nonenity. That's his funny hat - Wash is the pilot. Nothing else. We know zero else about him, even after a whole buncha episodes. Once again, the scriptwriteriting staff fell down on the job.
In 10 episodes, the "Firefly" staff coulf have and should have given these 3 ciphers fully rounded characterizations. It oonly takes a minute or two. Look how economical and beautiful the character reveloation scene proved wtih Jayne. At most 3 minutes, and we get his character completely. Compare with the rapid character development of the secondary characters in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" TV series and it becomes woefully apparent how inadequate the characterization of Book and Zoe and Wash were in "Firefly."
After 10 episodes, 3 funny hat cipher characters who remain nothing more than cardboard cutouts out of 7 characters total is inexcusable.
That just won't fly.
The writing staff for "Firefly" should've been flogged for doing such a superb job on so many scripts, but so inexplicably leaving Zoe and Wash and Book as c
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
it must be nice pretending you're opinion is well thought out and educated, which you hope to demonstrate by footnoting your examples of character types and plot points with some very obscure literature (Leviathan for god's sake? of all the books you compare, a book of outdated political philosophy that was meant to outline how the government should run, and you compare this to sci-fi show about cowboys in space. Pick up Neitzche or Jung and then talk about human nature. Leave Hobbes out of it.) How very learned you must want to appear to everyone on the board.
You're lambasting a show that everyone here loves. You, a virtual non-entity who I"m sure hasn't penned many television scripts in his time, are trying to tell us that Joss Whedon and the people at Mutant Enemy are bad writers. You must be high. Joss, Tim, Marti, and all the rest have never failed to bring us good television, in a time when things like Celebrity Boxing and Survivor dominate the airwaves. The fact that you have even the inkling of the audacity to say that they don't know what they are doing is utterly feaking ridiculous.
If you don't like the show, which no matter how much you undoubtably profess to liking, despite your obvious problems with it, just don't watch it. And certainly don't come to post on a board where everyone here is already upset that the show we love is now in a state of limbo. Your semi-educated opinion helps no one here. Go post on the Enterprise board if you think Roddenbury had it so right (because if anything is cookie-cutter, it's the Star Trek franchise).
Go away now and leave the Fireflies alone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The fact that Robert Sparling has descended to ad hominem name-calling assures us that he has run out of arguments and run out of facts and run out of logic.
Time once again to dissect his pervasively false claims:
"it must be nice pretending you're opinion is well thought out and educated, which you hope to demonstrate..."
A couple of pointers, sir.
First, if you intend to lecture other people on what good writing is and isn't, please figure out how to spell and how to capitalize.
Your first sentence should read "It must be nice pretending your opinion..."
Not "you're."
Also, before you propose to lecture us on the nature of good writing, please be sure to avoid run-on sentences. Your first sentence is a doozy of a run-on...and I've seen some whoppers in my time.
If you don't know what a "run-on sentence" is, ask Mommy. Or chcek your Fowler's English Usage.
Robert Sparling continues digging himself a deep dark hole with more baseless character assassination by asserting "by footnoting your examples of character types and plot points with some very obscure literature (Leviathan for god's sake? of all the books you compare, a book of outdated political philosophy that was meant to outline how the government should run, and you compare this to sci-fi show about cowboys in space. Pick up Neitzche or Jung and then talk about human nature. Leave Hobbes out of it.)"
If you think Hobbes' "Leviathan" is obscure, that tells us more about you than about me, kiddo. Hobbes and Rousseau represent the two polar opposites of the 4-centuries-long debate about human nature in Western society. Rousseau stands for the inveterate optimist who claims "main was born free, and is everywhere in hcains. To Rousseau, man (I mean this in the universal sense, ladies, no intention to be sexist here) is basically good.
Hobbes represents the extreme opposite viewpoint in Western culture. To Hobbes, life in nature is not good -- it is (to quote) "nast, brutish and short."
If you think either Hobbes or Rousseau are "obscure," you may want to read a book sometimes, bubba. I suspect that the folks on this discussion board are considerably better educated that than. I strongly suspect that the folks on this board know full well that Rouseeau and Hobbes reprsent the 2 diametric extremes in the Western debate about human nature.
Which makes my reference to Hobbes hardly obscure, and certainly not an attmept to appear learned. Rather, the only surprise is that I didn't reference Rousseau in my discussion of human nature.
We get more of Robert Sparling's usual character assassination withthe ad hominem insult "How very learned you must want to appear to everyone on the board."
Kiddo, if you think a reference to Hobbes' "Leviathan" is learned, well...that tells us a lot about you, doesn't it?
Robert Sparling's ad hominem insults continue unabated: "You're lambasting a show that everyone here loves. You, a virtual non-entity who I"m sure hasn't penned many television scripts in his time, are trying to tell us that Joss Whedon and the people at Mutant Enemy are bad writers. You must be high."
First, your claim is pervasively false. Provide proof that I ever said Joss Whedon and hte people at Mutatnt Enemy are bad writers, or stand revealed as a liar and character assassin.
What I said (and what I stand by) is that the early scripts were spotty. One script was appallingly poor, "Bushwhacked," for reasons I've detailed elsewhere.
You have failed to address my specific crticisms. Instead, you have fallen back on the last resort of all the loud-mouthed chowderheads on the losing side of debate -- you have resorted ot baseless character assassintion.
Cut the ad hominem insults and address my specific points, sir. You have utterly failed to do so.
Until then, you merely dig yourself a deeper hole, and disgrace yourself mor thoroughly with your irrelevant character assasination.
You go on to remark:
"Joss, Tim, Marti, and all the rest have never
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Once again you've misquoted me. The last little bit about the crew "banding together" was not mine. And it's very nice how you seem to be directing these posts to everyone but me with the often repeated "Robert Sparling once again..." or "Once more, Robert Sparling..." I posted to you. Please post to me.
I'm glad you're an "intellectual" and that you consider Rousseau and Hobbes so modern and applicable. It's a wonder why you aren't out there correcting all the ills of the world through essay and book and lecture, instead of protecting your "character" (Xed: use your real name if you care about your character, and not just sounding like an "intelligent" poster with a pseudonym). And yes Newton was insane, he thought he was an alchemist and kept trying to turn lead into gold. So glad you brought that up in a way that in no way matters to the material discussed.
And by saying that the scripts to Firefly were "poorly written," you are in fact saying that Joss and the people who write the scripts (hint: that's the people in the Mutant Enemy writing pool) are bad scriptwriters. So please don't call me a character assassin because you can't remember what you mangae to jot down while randomly griping.
And if there is anyone who should NOT be telling me to spell crorectly, it's you. If you took the time to re-read your posts, you'd see the many spelling errors, as I'm sure everyone else has. Don't rag on me for mixing up a "there/their/they're." You have no room to comment.
I won't be responding anymore to your posts, as I'm hoping you'll eventually go away and find some other show to buzzkill, much like the rest of the board I imagine. I have to ask though, why did your last post end with my words?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I feel you are using the term " funny hat " in a far too broad way. A funny hat character is one that is easily slotted into an architype , such as , The wacky drunk, the Obnoxious Neighbor, bitter mother in law, etc. They have only one trait, thats why they are funny hat characters. If a character is not completely fleshed out, if the audience does not fully understand that character's motivations, that does not automatically make said character a funny hat character. The preacher would be a funny hat character if the only thing he ever did was preach. But instead, he fights, makes witty remarks, seems to know a good amount about things that a preacher wouldnt know about. Thus, he's no longer a card board cut out. So he is not " the preacher" or even " the fighting preacher" he's the " fighting preaching with a spotty past who seems very skilled for a priest etc etc" not really a funny hat character. In general the term funny hat is usually applied to sidekicks or one-note/one joke characters. No character on Firefly deserves to be called one- note, even Wash hits several levels, wackiness, resentment, love, bewilderment, fear; so while you may chose to classify him as " the pilot" there are more character traits assigned to him that you are ignoring in using such a classification.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
holy crap on a broom stick xed...I am seriously considering removing my posts in defence of you. Not becouse I have changed mind but becouse I want to read more of your rebuttles. :)
Oh yeah hobbes is obscure to me...probably something I shouldn't admit to but I feel OK about it. The whole debate on the nature of human morailty has been put to rest by the works of Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diomond and Robert Wright.(which makes me wonder why these guys' ideas arn't referanced more in art...I think it has something to do with what Edward O. Wilson said "The human mind has evolved to belive in gods not biology.")
And you forgot to list my two favorite "Virtual entities" Watson and Crick. :)
keep up the good work Xed. I know i enjoy your thoughts.
hook
http://diogenes.gotdns.org
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
XED your comments are so retarded. If we look at any successful show you will find that there are always characters that will fit into your insane funny hat concept. For example with X Files, Agent Skinner, The Cigarette Smoking Man, Agent Krycek and many other characters would be wearing your funny hats. This was because the characters were shrouded in mystery, which was intentional. These characters where meant to be mysterious and the truth about them was revealed slowly. In most cases this took many seasons.
The same goes for Firefly. Most of the characters where mysterious at the start of the show and some are still mysteries now. River is still a mystery even though we know more about her, Inara is also a mystery, I get the feeling that she might be running away from something and Book is of corse a mystery and that is of course intentional. Book is probably the most interesting character after River Because of the mystery surrounding him. It is impotent to understand the difference between a character that is two dimensional and a character that is shrouded in mystery. Book is clearly not a two dimensional character.
On the other hand you could mistakenly think of Wash and Zoe as two dimensional characters. This is of course intentional as well. Mel has known these two characters the longest, so therefore there will be little or no mystery surrounding these two. Wash and Zoe are not the focus of the show at this point. River and Simon are. Wash & Zoe have had some character development of late in terms of there relation ship not working well mostly due to the presence of Mel. The writers have done an excellent job of developing the characters so far and they know doubt will continue to do so with all the characters(assuming that the show gets picked up by UPN).
XED it is good that you are consistently misguided with all your comments. It makes it a lot easier to just pass you off as a bit of a lunatic. What you see as two dimensional characters the rest of us see as characters shrouded in mystery.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME